During her PhD research on Organizational Resilience with the same group, she became interested in psychological safety—a theme that now plays a central role in her professional and personal life. She participated in the scientific pitch competition Talking Science and also published a personal book based on her diaries, openly reflecting on her own development and struggles.

What is psychological safety?

Psychological safety is often confused with social safety, but there is an important distinction. Social safety concerns protection from boundary violations, intimidation, exclusion, discrimination, or abuse of power.

Psychological safety is not so much about protection against inappropriate or transgressive behavior, but about the climate within a team: the implicit rules that determine whether dissenting opinions, doubts, or mistakes are welcome. It is an often invisible, yet essential foundation within an organization — the trust that openness will not be used against you.

Resistance

Initially, Van den Berg intended to study how other organizations addressed psychological safety and where improvements could be made. She quickly realized, however, that there was still much to be gained within TU/e itself. She decided to focus on her own organization, though this was not met with universal enthusiasm.

In practice, that’s far from always the case, Van den Berg notes. “In academic culture, it often doesn’t pay off to be critical or show vulnerability,” she says. According to her, this is linked to hierarchical structures and the pressure to advance your career. “It can have direct consequences: your supervisor might limit your opportunities, or you could be penalized for thinking outside the box.”

She shares the example of a postdoc colleague currently working abroad: “Her supervisor constantly pressures her to publish the next paper with his name as a co-author, even though he didn’t contribute anything.” 

The postdoc accepts it for now. “’That’s just how it goes,’ she told me. In a year, she’ll become an assistant professor and will be able to chart her own course.” Until then, her position of dependency outweighs her objections.

Structural problem

Van den Berg stresses that this is not an isolated incident, but a structural problem in academia. “We’ve come to see this as normal, and because no one dares to speak up, the system perpetuates itself.”

Her own experiences show how difficult it can be to voice your opinion. “I wanted to give feedback to someone in a higher hierarchical position, but it was not well received. It was clear that this person wasn’t interested.” Online, she notices the same: a critical question on LinkedIn was removed by a senior colleague, with the excuse that it “came across badly.” “I found it downright bizarre that one scientist would try to silence another.”

Cultural differences

Culture also plays an important role. Dutch people often find it easier to speak up, thanks to a relatively open culture that encourages assertiveness. For people from other cultures—such as many Asian countries—this can be more difficult.

“They are more likely to be taken advantage of because they have a stronger sense of hierarchy and tend to follow what their supervisor says. They don’t often say no, even when their workload is excessive. In their culture, it’s considered inappropriate to contradict your boss.”

This highlights the challenge of psychological safety in international teams: how do you ensure that everyone, regardless of cultural background, feels free to speak up? “This is something organizations need to think about carefully,” Van den Berg says.

Valuable insights

Psychological safety is important not just for employees, but for the organization as a whole. “It allows you to gather diverse perspectives and viewpoints, from which the organization can learn and grow,” the researcher explains.

“When that safety is lacking, you maintain a culture of fear where people hold back their ideas and follow the crowd. Valuable insights are lost.” Employees are also less engaged and less willing to go the extra mile when they don’t feel psychologically safe.

Taking action

In practice, change is difficult. “Bottom-up initiatives struggle to gain traction due to complex structures and hesitation when things get challenging. Sometimes it feels almost like you’re being blocked,” she says.

According to Van den Berg, there is also a gap between policy and practice. “Central initiatives, such as the Social Safety Desk, are good in themselves, but they also need to reach the workplace. If teams don’t have concrete conversations about these issues, nothing changes.”

One example is a social safety game that had long been gathering dust in an HRM closet. Van den Berg decided to bring it back into use. She plans to see if she can implement it in her own research group. “Policies and tools are important, but ultimately it happens in teams. On every department, in every research group, people themselves must take the initiative and have the conversation together,” she concludes.